Is in vivo and ex vivo irradiation equally reliable for individual Radiosensitivity testing by three colour fluorescence in situ hybridization?
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Chromosome Aberrations
Cohort Studies
Color
Female
Humans
In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence
Lung Neoplasms
/ genetics
Male
Metaphase
Middle Aged
Radiation Tolerance
/ genetics
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Rectal Neoplasms
/ genetics
Reproducibility of Results
Young Adult
Breaks per metaphase
Chromosomal aberrations
Individual radiosensitivity
Lung cancer
Rectal cancer
Three color fluorescence in situ hybridization
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Dec 2019
31 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
27
07
2019
accepted:
11
12
2019
entrez:
2
1
2020
pubmed:
2
1
2020
medline:
19
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Individual radiosensitivity is influencing the outcome of radiation therapy. A general ex vivo testing is very work-intensive. It is of interest to see if a significant prediction concerning the sensitivity can be made by in vivo irradiation during radiation treatment. Blood samples of 274 patients with rectal cancer and 43 lung cancer patients receiving radiotherapy were examined after 2 Gy ex vivo and in vivo ionizing radiation. Chromosomes # 1, 2 and 4 were stained by the 3-color-fluorescence in situ hybridization. Chromosomal aberrations were analyzed as breaks per metaphase (B/M). The deposited energy per session was calculated for each patient. Weak correlation could be found between the chromosomal aberrations ex and in vivo. Though receiving significantly smaller deposited energy during radiation therapy (RT) the lung cancer cohort displayed B/M values similar to the rectal cancer cohort. Considering the individual deposit energy differences improved slightly the correlation. As various factors influence the induction of chromosomal aberrations it seems not feasible to estimate individual radiosensitivity via in vivo irradiation. An ex vivo estimation of individual radiosensitivity should be preferred.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Individual radiosensitivity is influencing the outcome of radiation therapy. A general ex vivo testing is very work-intensive. It is of interest to see if a significant prediction concerning the sensitivity can be made by in vivo irradiation during radiation treatment.
METHODS
METHODS
Blood samples of 274 patients with rectal cancer and 43 lung cancer patients receiving radiotherapy were examined after 2 Gy ex vivo and in vivo ionizing radiation. Chromosomes # 1, 2 and 4 were stained by the 3-color-fluorescence in situ hybridization. Chromosomal aberrations were analyzed as breaks per metaphase (B/M). The deposited energy per session was calculated for each patient.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Weak correlation could be found between the chromosomal aberrations ex and in vivo. Though receiving significantly smaller deposited energy during radiation therapy (RT) the lung cancer cohort displayed B/M values similar to the rectal cancer cohort. Considering the individual deposit energy differences improved slightly the correlation.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
As various factors influence the induction of chromosomal aberrations it seems not feasible to estimate individual radiosensitivity via in vivo irradiation. An ex vivo estimation of individual radiosensitivity should be preferred.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31892333
doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1444-4
pii: 10.1186/s13014-019-1444-4
pmc: PMC6938618
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2Références
Strahlenther Onkol. 2003 Jul;179(7):493-8
pubmed: 12835887
Radiother Oncol. 2006 Dec;81(3):257-63
pubmed: 17113667
Int J Radiat Biol. 2013 Dec;89(12):1087-93
pubmed: 23855681
Radiat Res. 2013 Nov;180(5):465-73
pubmed: 24083681
Br J Cancer. 2002 Dec 2;87(12):1379-85
pubmed: 12454765
Int J Radiat Biol. 1999 Oct;75(10):1215-22
pubmed: 10549597
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Apr 1;55(5):1216-25
pubmed: 12654430
Strahlenther Onkol. 2017 Mar;193(3):240-242
pubmed: 28120007
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011 Mar;144(1-4):407-10
pubmed: 21131662
Mutat Res. 1994 May 1;307(1):345-53
pubmed: 7513815
Radiat Oncol. 2011 Apr 07;6:32
pubmed: 21473753
Radiat Res. 1996 Jan;145(1):3-16
pubmed: 8532833
BMC Geriatr. 2018 May 4;18(1):105
pubmed: 29728069
Mil Med. 2002 Feb;167(2 Suppl):8-9
pubmed: 11873525
J Radiat Res. 2015 Jul;56(4):709-16
pubmed: 25922373
Radiother Oncol. 2000 May;55(2):179-86
pubmed: 10799730
Strahlenther Onkol. 2017 Oct;193(10):848-855
pubmed: 28642964
Radiat Res. 1996 Jan;145(1):47-52
pubmed: 8532836
Strahlenther Onkol. 2004 May;180(5):289-96
pubmed: 15127159
Radiother Oncol. 1997 May;43(2):189-95
pubmed: 9192966
Int J Oncol. 1996 Apr;8(4):707-12
pubmed: 21544417
Radiother Oncol. 2003 Nov;69(2):137-44
pubmed: 14643950
Strahlenther Onkol. 2005 May;181(5):326-35
pubmed: 15900430
Chromosome Res. 1999;7(8):625-33
pubmed: 10628663
Strahlenther Onkol. 1998 Oct;174(10):510-6
pubmed: 9810318
Cytogenet Cell Genet. 2001;92(3-4):186-91
pubmed: 11435685
Int J Radiat Biol. 2004 Aug;80(8):615-20
pubmed: 15370973
Br J Cancer. 2001 Apr 6;84(7):892-6
pubmed: 11286467